Official list of valid baptisms

[JaredR]

I am trying to find an official list of valid baptisms so I can show my RCIA director that I was validly baptized (as a Seventh-day Adventist). Any help on your part would be appreciated. I have seen here and elsewhere that it is a valid baptism (water + Trinitarian formula), but I need something official and authoritative.

 

[Tietjen]

I am trying to find an official list of valid baptisms so I can show my RCIA director that I was validly baptized (as a Seventh-day Adventist). Any help on your part would be appreciated. I have seen here and elsewhere that it is a valid baptism (water + Trinitarian formula), but I need something official and authoritative.

Canon 849-878 should be able to help you. God bless.

 

[JaredR]

Hmm, is there a list of denominations in there? I don’t know if I was navigating it correctly.

 

[Tietjen]

Hmm, is there a list of denominations in there? I don’t know if I was navigating it correctly.

My apologies, I misunderstood what you were asking for. The Archdiocese of Sant Fe has a list of various Protestant baptisms and which ones are valid and which are not. You can find it here. God bless.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I am trying to find an official list of valid baptisms so I can show my RCIA director that I was validly baptized (as a Seventh-day Adventist). Any help on your part would be appreciated. I have seen here and elsewhere that it is a valid baptism (water + Trinitarian formula), but I need something official and authoritative.

Seventh-Day-Adventist Baptism is not accepted as valid Baptism.

 

[cameron_lansing]

Seventh-Day-Adventist Baptism is not accepted as valid Baptism.

Brother Rich,

This is not the case universally with this denomination in the U.S. The presumption is that they are. Advise the RCIA director to consult the diocese in the case of uncertainty.

There is no “official” list per se, although there has been a declaration from CDF regarding “Mormon” baptism. The lists on the internet reflect the general opinion of learned experts and canonists, and the diocesan sponsored pages are generally reliable. An investigation would hinge on the details of the actual baptism.

In addition to the canons though, the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, 1993 would be consulted by the person making the exam. From n. 95, in part:

"95. . . . the following points should be kept in mind:

"a) Baptism by immersion, or by pouring, together with the Trinitarian formula is, of itself, valid. Therefore, if the rituals, liturgical books or established customs of a Church or ecclesial Community prescribe either of these ways of baptism, the sacrament is to be considered valid unless there are serious reasons for doubting that the minister has observed the regulations of hisher own Community or Church.
"b) The minister’s insufficient faith concerning baptism never of itself makes baptism invalid. Sufficient intention in a minister who baptizes is to be presumed, unless there is serious ground for doubting that the minister intended to do what the Church does.
“c) Wherever doubts arise about whether, or how water was used, respect for the sacrament and deference towards these ecclesial Communities require that serious investigation of the practice of the Community concerned be made before any judgment is passed on the validity of its baptism.”
Sprinkling can also be valid, but the problem often arises that water never hit the person, and particular cases are subject to close scrutiny.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Brother Rich,

This is not the case universally with this denomination in the U.S. The presumption is that they are. Advise the RCIA director to consult the diocese in the case of uncertainty.

There is no “official” list per se, although there has been a declaration from CDF regarding “Mormon” baptism. The lists on the internet reflect the general opinion of learned experts and canonists, and the diocesan sponsored pages are generally reliable. An investigation would hinge on the details of the actual baptism.

In addition to the canons though, the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, 1993 would be consulted by the person making the exam. From n. 95, in part:

"95. . . . the following points should be kept in mind:

"a) Baptism by immersion, or by pouring, together with the Trinitarian formula is, of itself, valid. Therefore, if the rituals, liturgical books or established customs of a Church or ecclesial Community prescribe either of these ways of baptism, the sacrament is to be considered valid unless there are serious reasons for doubting that the minister has observed the regulations of hisher own Community or Church.
"b) The minister’s insufficient faith concerning baptism never of itself makes baptism invalid. Sufficient intention in a minister who baptizes is to be presumed, unless there is serious ground for doubting that the minister intended to do what the Church does.
“c) Wherever doubts arise about whether, or how water was used, respect for the sacrament and deference towards these ecclesial Communities require that serious investigation of the practice of the Community concerned be made before any judgment is passed on the validity of its baptism.”
Sprinkling can also be valid, but the problem often arises that water never hit the person, and particular cases are subject to close scrutiny.

In this diocese last time I looked at the list, JW, SDA, and LDS were not accepted.

 

[cameron_lansing]

Brother Rich,

Then it think that it must be an exceptional list, and *stat solus ab alia *to the best of my knowledge. Huels in Pastoral Companion, the basis for most lists available on the internet and cited approvingly by Woestman (both are standard published canonists) , including diocesan lists, would place the Adventists on the valid list. They are trinitarian and embrace the divinity of Christ. They are to be considered as among the Christian denominations, despite their various errors.

What the point might be is that Adventist dedication is of course not baptism, or that in a particular case, the minister of baptism had deviated from the doctrine or praxis of the Adventists. Those things are discovered in examination of particular details, which is always necessary.

 

[puzzleannie]

I am trying to find an official list of valid baptisms so I can show my RCIA director that I was validly baptized (as a Seventh-day Adventist). Any help on your part would be appreciated. I have seen here and elsewhere that it is a valid baptism (water + Trinitarian formula), but I need something official and authoritative.

your diocese has this and your director should have a copy if she is doing her job, If she has a question take it to the pastor and he can call the diocese to make sure (it may be that in your part of the country denominations do things differently).
whoops forgot to say welcome home,
if at anytime you feel the director or catechist is not handling things properly, by all means go to the pastor about it so you can get clarification.

 

[JaredR]

your diocese has this and your director should have a copy if she is doing her job, If she has a question take it to the pastor and he can call the diocese to make sure (it may be that in your part of the country denominations do things differently).
whoops forgot to say welcome home,
if at anytime you feel the director or catechist is not handling things properly, by all means go to the pastor about it so you can get clarification.

She has a list, but Seventh-day Adventist is not listed as either valid or invalid.

whoops forgot to say welcome home,

Thank you.

Rich, why wouldn’t it be valid? I was baptized by immersion and in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

 

[DOShea]

JaredR,

The basis for accepting or not accepting the baptism rite performed by another faith lies in whether or not it was a water baptism and whether or not there was a Trinitarian formula (i.e.- baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.) used at the same time.

Some non-Catholic Christian denominations follow these traditions and are automatically accepted as valid. Others do not follow it, and are not. In the middle, which is where (in my diocese at least) the Seventh-Day Adventists lie, it may or may not have been done according to the acceptable forms of the rite. In such cases, further investigation is called for, but that is done by the diocese, not the individual.

As some posts above point out, and I do also, each diocese has their guidelines for accepting/not accepting/needing further investigation as it pertains to baptism. Here is a link to my dioceses’ guidelines, contained in a handbook for RCIA, that will give you an example. Please note pages 37 and 38.

ptdiocese.org/christian-formation/documents/sacramental_guidelines.pdf

You will need to find out what your diocese guidelines are and follow those.

I recommend you don’t fret too much about it. If your previous baptism is found to be invalid in terms of Catholic norms, there’s plenty of water for you.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

She has a list, but Seventh-day Adventist is not listed as either valid or invalid.

Thank you.

Rich, why wouldn’t it be valid? I was baptized by immersion and in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Our list didn’t have reasons stated, it was just a list of denominations that were accepted as valid. Which personally I don’t like. I believe each case should be carefully looked into and not just accepted.

 

[JaredR]

You will need to find out what your diocese guidelines are and follow those.

I recommend you don’t fret too much about it. If your previous baptism is found to be invalid in terms of Catholic norms, there’s plenty of water for you.

I scoured my diocese website but couldn’t find anything (dioceseofgrandrapids.org/Pages/Home.aspx).

I know I shouldn’t to worry about this, but my baptism is a part of who I am and how I look at myself. To have that called into question feels like losing my middle name. Up until this point I have considered myself a member of the family of God, even if I’m not yet in the Church. I may not even be a Christian!

 

[Cluny]

FWIW, most Orthodox jurisdictions do not consider SDA baptism to be valid, and require those being received to have canonical Orthodox baptism.

And the Saturday Sabbath issue is NOT involved in the reasons why.

It is because SDA, like JW, believe Jesus to be the incarnation of Michael the Archangel.

 

[puzzleannie]

there are some denominations, SDA is one at least here, some branches of Baptist are another, who do not follow a uniform policy regarding baptism. Either they don’t adhere to the directives of their own body, they do not accept all the beliefs about baptism propounded by their own body, or they are splinter groups or pastors who have their own views and conduct baptism according to them. For that reason, even though SDA baptism is listed as “generally believed to be valid” we are further instructed to examine each and every such baptism and ascertain the facts. If you were old enough to remember, or have witnessed who can attest to what happened that will help, but the diocese will also have knowledge since they have investigated how a given denomination or even a given pastor in your locale actually does practice.

For that reason your director is right to go with the information provided by the diocese, but that does not let her off the hook with regard to investigating your situation. In a case such as that OP describes most likely he would be baptized conditionally, unless the facts surrounding his baptism can be proven.

Even if that becomes necessary, it is no reflection on OP, simple a quirk of human nature, that someone or something he thought he could trust turned out to be not what he expected. None of that would be his fault, there would be no whisper of blame on him, the experience of being shaken up by the situation is part and parcel of the process, and I hope his director helps him with those feelings.

 

[Alvarillo]

So what’s the policy then? When in doubt baptize? Wouldn’t it be better just to be on the safe side?

 

[DOShea]

I scoured my diocese website but couldn’t find anything

I took a look around there also and didn’t find anything listed. But rest assured, though it may not be in print on the net, someone at your church or your diocese has the answer, and I don’t suspect it would be very far off from the example I showed from my own diocese. A simple phone call to your diocese should get you the answer.

I know I shouldn’t to worry about this, but my baptism is a part of who I am and how I look at myself.

I was trying to keep my response lighthearted and hopeful, but I’m afraid that didn’t come across very well. If my comment seemed belittling of your feelings about your baptism I heartily apologize. It was never my intent to diminish it in any way, whether it turns out to be valid or invalid.

You are absolutely right to think that way, and that is why the Church will put some legwork into this rather than simply dismiss it out of hand. They do that to respect baptisms wherever possible, so long as it meets the minimum criteria for validity.

 

[JuanCarlos]

So what’s the policy then? When in doubt baptize? Wouldn’t it be better just to be on the safe side?

Yes. In olden times, non-Catholics were almost universally conditionally rebaptized. As a famous example, Oscar Wilde was baptized Anglican, but on his death bed was baptized by a priest.

The Church Fathers wrote that baptism by heretics was valid; the question is whether the heretics baptize for the remission of sins.

 

[Seatuck]

This article says the baptism is valid.

catholic.com/library/Seventh_Day_Adventism.asp

 

[JaredR]

I was trying to keep my response lighthearted and hopeful, but I’m afraid that didn’t come across very well. If my comment seemed belittling of your feelings about your baptism I heartily apologize. It was never my intent to diminish it in any way, whether it turns out to be valid or invalid.

You are absolutely right to think that way, and that is why the Church will put some legwork into this rather than simply dismiss it out of hand. They do that to respect baptisms wherever possible, so long as it meets the minimum criteria for validity.

Oh no, I wasn’t at all offended by your comment.

I’m 17, and my fear is that they will just do a conditional baptism without putting in as thorough an investigation of my first baptism. I’m young and they may not realize that I understand the significance of baptism. I will agree to a conditional baptism if there is any doubt, of course, but I would much rather find out that my baptism was valid. I guess I will have to communicate my feelings to the director and to the priest.